1. DHR activates in construction and working on this segment, implies a factual approach to business; therefore the activity is highly dependent in meeting the deadlines. The method that best describes how Davis and Hodgetts evaluated Kennison’s work is the critical incident method. This specific method is based on identifying and describing incidents or certain areas where employees did a really good job or where they need to improve (“Performance Appraisal Methods”). Kennison needed to improve deadlines of the projects in order to pass the inspectors’ controls, to manage more carefully the subcontractors and to have a more open communication.
2. The critical incident method determined Kennison to change his managing style (initially calm, candid), following the regular managerial approach used in construction segment, which imposes rigor, strictness and regular controls. Therefore, Kennison’s change of attitude towards subcontractors and towards the project did not produce a long lasting result in his ability to manage the subcontractors.
3. If I were to decide upon Kennison’s appraisal method, I would have chosen the behaviorally anchored rating scales method. This would have allowed the rating of behaviors and the evaluation of the efficiency or inefficiency of the working performances (“Performance Appraisal Methods”). In Kennison’s case, this method would have been appropriate, because it would have indicated that although there were registered delays in the construction process, the project was going well overall, because a consolidated team was handling it and the subcontractors’ behavior was good, not showing signs of skipping or missing from work.
4. Being concerned and unsatisfied about how the project was going under Kennison, Davis and Hodgetts acted correct by presenting the real facts to Kennison. However, they should have dedicated more time in investigating how work was going on the job site and in evaluating how their expectations might further influence the implementation and development of the project.
5. Kennison was evaluated by the founders of the company, whose main objective was to meet the deadlines and to satisfy the end – users. Kennison should have been evaluated by a Human Resources Manager, specialized on the construction segment. A HR Manager is consistent with the complexities involved in different functions and such a person would have been able to gather the good results versus the drawbacks and compare the results. Based on the identified results, s/he could have designed an informed further approach.
References
Performance appraisal methods (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/performance-appraisal-methods/
